Mughal Twilight: Unraveling the Decline

While Aurangzeb was a capable administrator and military commander, some of his policies are considered to have contributed to the empire's weakening.

Aurangzeb's death in 1707 was followed by a series of weak, incompetent, and often pleasure-loving rulers:

• Bahadur Shah I (1707-1712): Relatively able but old, adopted a conciliatory policy but could not reverse the decline.
• Jahandar Shah (1712-1713): Ruled with help of Zulfiqar Khan, known for frivolity.
• Farrukhsiyar (1713-1719): Owed throne to Sayyid Brothers, later tried to oust them, leading to his downfall. Granted important trading farman to EIC in 1717.
• Muhammad Shah "Rangeela" (1719-1748): Long reign, but devoted to pleasure, art, and music. Witnessed Nadir Shah's invasion and rise of autonomous states.
• Later rulers like Ahmad Shah, Alamgir II, Shah Alam II were mere puppets.

These rulers lacked the political acumen, military prowess, and administrative capacity of their predecessors.

Wars of Succession

• Mughals had no fixed, clear law of succession (like primogeniture). Each son of the emperor had an equal claim.
• Frequent and bloody wars of succession after the death of almost every major ruler.
• These conflicts destabilized the empire, wasted precious resources (men and money), weakened the nobility (as factions supported different claimants), and disrupted administration.

Degeneration of Mughal Nobility

• The character and quality of the Mughal nobility declined.
• Became faction-ridden, divided along ethnic/regional lines (Irani, Turani, Hindustani/Indian Muslim, Afghan factions) competing for power and influence at court.
• Became increasingly corrupt, self-serving, and pleasure-seeking. Focused on intrigue rather than efficient administration or military leadership.
• Lost the martial spirit and loyalty that characterized earlier nobles. Rise of "kingmakers" like the Sayyid Brothers (Abdullah Khan and Hussain Ali Khan).

A structural crisis within the Mansabdari-Jagirdari system.

• A. Shortage of Jagirs (Paibaqi): Number of mansabdars increased over time, but the availability of productive jagirs did not keep pace. This led to long waits for jagirs and discontent among nobles.
• B. Frequent Transfers of Jagirs: Policy of transferring jagirdars frequently (to prevent them from developing local roots) led to exploitation of peasantry. Jagirdars sought to extract maximum revenue in a short time, with no incentive for long-term agricultural development.
• C. Growth of Hereditary Jagirs: In later period, some powerful nobles managed to hold jagirs on a hereditary or semi-hereditary basis, defying transfers and weakening central control.
• D. Reduced Income of State (Khalisa Land): To satisfy nobles, Khalisa (crown) lands were increasingly converted into jagir lands, reducing the direct revenue income of the central treasury.

(Source: Satish Chandra, "Medieval India"; Irfan Habib, "Agrarian System of Mughal India")

Agrarian Crisis

• Oppression and exploitation of the peasantry contributed to decline.
• High land revenue demand (often 50% or more).
• Oppression by corrupt officials and exploitative jagirdars (due to Jagirdari crisis).
• Led to peasant distress, flight from land in some areas, and widespread peasant revolts (e.g., Jats, Satnamis, Sikhs, Marathas – these movements often had strong agrarian grievances, though also religious/political dimensions).
• Decline in agricultural production in some regions due to instability and exploitation.

Economic Decline

• Multiple factors contributed to economic weakening:
• Drain of wealth due to constant wars (especially Aurangzeb's Deccan campaigns, wars of succession).
• Lavish spending by emperors and nobility on luxury goods.
• Reduced revenue collection due to administrative breakdown and rebellions.
• Disruption of trade and agriculture in regions affected by warfare and instability.
• Rise of revenue farming (Ijaradari): Practice of leasing out revenue collection rights to the highest bidder. Ijaradars were exploitative, aiming for short-term profit, further burdening peasants.

Military Weakness

• The once formidable Mughal army declined in efficiency, discipline, and morale.
• Outdated military technology and tactics compared to rising powers like the Marathas (guerrilla warfare) and later Europeans (superior field artillery, infantry discipline).
• Mansabdari system became inefficient: False musters, corruption in payment, nobles not maintaining stipulated contingents.
• Neglect of navy, making coastlines vulnerable.
• Lack of scientific and technological advancement in military sphere.

Size of Empire

• The empire had become too vast to be administered effectively from a single center with pre-modern means of communication and transport.
• Maintaining control over distant provinces became increasingly difficult, especially with weakening central leadership.

As central Mughal authority weakened, provincial governors began to assert autonomy.

• These "successor states" acknowledged nominal Mughal suzerainty for some time but were virtually independent.
• Bengal: Murshid Quli Khan (appointed Diwan in 1700, Subadar in 1717) effectively founded an autonomous dynasty.
• Awadh (Oudh): Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk (appointed Subadar in 1722) established an autonomous state.
• Hyderabad (Deccan): Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah I (Chin Qilich Khan) founded the Asaf Jahi dynasty in 1724.

Emerged as the most formidable challenge to Mughal authority under Shivaji and later the Peshwas.

• Expanded their influence across Deccan and North India.
• Collected Chauth (1/4th of revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (additional 1/10th levy) from Mughal territories, signifying their dominance.

Sikhs

• After Guru Gobind Singh, Banda Bahadur led a fierce uprising (1708-1715).
• Later, Sikhs organized themselves into Misls (confederacies) and gradually consolidated power in Punjab.
• Maharaja Ranjit Singh (late 18th - early 19th century) unified the Misls and established a powerful Sikh kingdom in Punjab.

Jats

• Agrarian community around Delhi, Agra, Mathura. Revolted under leaders like Gokula, Raja Ram, Churaman.
• Badan Singh and Suraj Mal carved out a powerful Jat state with its capital at Bharatpur. Suraj Mal (1756-1763) was a particularly able ruler.

Empire-Centric View (Traditional)

Focuses on factors internal to the imperial structure and leadership.

Key proponents: Jadunath Sarkar, Stanley Wolpert.

• Emphasizes: Degeneration of rulers (weak successors) and nobility (corruption, factionalism).
• Administrative breakdown (Mansabdari-Jagirdari crisis).
• Aurangzeb's religious and Deccan policies as major contributors.
• Military inefficiency.

Region-Centric View (Revisionist)

Challenges the idea of universal decline, arguing for dynamism and prosperity in regions.

Key proponents: Muzaffar Alam, C.A. Bayly, Andre Wink.

• Emphasizes: Economic prosperity in certain regions (e.g., Bengal, Awadh) leading to rise of new social classes (merchants, local gentry, intermediary zamindars).
• These groups, along with provincial governors, asserted regional independence not necessarily due to imperial decay alone, but due to growing regional strength and ambition.
• Decline of central empire did not mean decline of India as a whole; rather, a shifting of power, resources, and economic dynamism to regional centers. "Decentralization" rather than "decline."

Marxist Interpretation

Focuses on class conflict and structural flaws in the economic system.

Key proponents: Irfan Habib, Athar Ali.

• Emphasizes: Agrarian crisis: High revenue demand, exploitation of peasantry by jagirdars and zamindars, leading to peasant resistance and flight, disrupting agricultural production.
• Jagirdari crisis: Shortage of jagirs, instability of assignments, leading to over-exploitation.
• These structural contradictions within the Mughal system are seen as the primary cause of its collapse.

Cultural & Institutional Factors

Some historians also point to broader cultural and institutional stagnation.

• Relative stagnation in science and technology compared to Europe.
• Lack of dynamism in social and economic institutions to adapt to changing conditions.
• Educational system not fostering critical inquiry or innovation.

It is generally accepted now that Mughal decline was a complex process resulting from a combination of these factors, with varying emphasis depending on the historian's perspective.

Heritage Conservation

• ASI and Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) continue restoration at Mughal sites like Humayun's Tomb complex, Sunder Nursery, Qutb Shahi Tombs (Deccan Sultanate but related architectural tradition).
• Ongoing efforts for preservation of Taj Mahal from pollution and structural stress, including considerations by Supreme Court.
• Red Fort, Delhi: Development of new museums and visitor facilities. The adoption of monuments under the "Adopt a Heritage" scheme sometimes brings Mughal sites into focus.

(Sources: PIB, AKTC website, The Hindu, Indian Express, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Culture websites)

GI Tags & Traditional Crafts

While not directly "Mughal", traditional crafts that flourished during that era continue to seek or have GI protection.

• Examples: Certain textiles (e.g., Banarasi silk, immense patronage), metalwork (Bidriware - Deccan, patronized by Mughals too), miniature paintings from regional schools that emerged from Mughal traditions.

(Recent GI tags can be checked on IPO India website)

UNESCO & Global Recognition

Mughal sites like Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Red Fort Complex are already World Heritage Sites.

• Any new significant findings or conservation master plans related to these often get international attention.
• In Sept 2023, Santiniketan was added to UNESCO list. While not Mughal, it highlights India's rich cultural heritage efforts.
• In July 2023, the nomination dossier for "Moidams – the Mound-Burial System of the Ahom Dynasty" was submitted to UNESCO, showing focus on diverse historical sites. (Ahoms were contemporaries and rivals of Mughals).

(Source: PIB)